Allahabad High Court
C/M Lokmanya Tilak Inter College Thru ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Deptt. Of ... on 27 February, 2015
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR (Orders/Judgment reserved on 23.02.2015) (Orders/Judgment delivered on 27.02.2015) Court No. - 3 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 526 of 2015 Petitioner :- C/M Lokmanya Tilak Inter College Thru Manager & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Deptt. Of Secondary Education &8 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kr. Yadav,Pt. S. Chandra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner, Pandit S.Chandra, learned counsel for the caveator (not impleaded in the writ petition), Sri U. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant seeking impleadment and Sri Avinav Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and its authority.
The dispute herein is regarding the election of the Committee of Management of the college in question and the consequent actions taken by the Educational Authorities invalidating the same, appointing the authorise controller and attesting his signatures. The petitioner Committee of Management was duly elected for a period of three years on 06.11.2011 and no dispute was raised about the said election. It is said that before expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, the process for holding the elections for the new Committee of Management was commenced in August, 2014, intimation was sent to the members of the general body for participating in the same and an observer was appointed by the D.I.O.S. According to the petitioner, the meeting of the general body took place on 28.09.2014 in the presence of the observer appointed by the D.I.O.S. and the elections were held wherein the office bearers were elected. However, it appears that the observer submitted an adverse report to the D.I.O.S. dated 01.10.2014 stating that all the proceedings were prepared beforehand and he was asked to sign the same but he declined. Based on the report of the observer, the D.I.O.S. vide his order dated 03.12.2014 referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education stating that neither any election officer was appointed nor any election schedule was declared, therefore, the election in question was not valid, specially in view of the report of the observer. Out of 81 members, 61 were intimated through U.P.C. Though the said mode of service had been abolished by the postal department of the Government of India vide notification dated 31.01.2011, therefore, the notices could not have been sent by the said mode. The D.I.O.S. also referred to a letter of the President of the Committee of Management, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav in response to the D.I.O.S.'s letter stating that the entire proceedings was held fraudulently in his absence and the proceedings did not bear his signatures. In view of the reference, the Regional Level Committee held the proceedings after giving notice to the concerned parties and after hearing them out, considering the submissions of the rival parties, the Regional Level Committee vide impugned order dated 02.01.2015, declared the elections as illegal and invalid. Consequently, it directed the D.I.O.S., Balrampur to get the elections held as per law within a period of three months. In spite of lapse of one and a half months, it is said that the D.I.O.S. has not initiated any steps for holding the election. Meanwhile, on 15.01.2015, the Regional Joint Director of Education, i.e. opposite party No.5 passed an order appointing an Authorised Controller in the college in question for facilitating the payment of wages and other benefits to its teachers and employees. This appointment was made till the election of new Committee of Management. The petitioner-Committee of Management has been referred therein as the superseded management. Consequently, on 19.01.2015, the signatures of the Authorised Controller, Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma, Principal, Rajkiya Inter College, Gaisai, Balrampur were attested by the D.I.O.S. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.
The submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order of the D.I.O.S. referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee is without jurisdiction and without any legal basis as there is no provision under which he could have referred it to the said committee. He contended that even on facts, the decision of the Regional Level Committee is not sustainable. Regional Level Committee had not at all considered the apparent fact which was placed before it that the observer did, in fact, put his signatures on the proceedings nor any explanation was sought from the observer in this regard. The notices to 61 members were sent by U.P.C. as the petitioner was not aware about the abolition of the said mode of service and even the employees of the postal department were not aware of it, that is why they did not raise any objection. He tried to justify the action by submitting that under the Scheme of Administration, the mode of service prescribed was through U.P.C. as the same was in existence at the time when said bye-laws/ Scheme of Administration was framed. He also invited the attention of the court to Annexure-15 to the writ petition to show that the notice of the meeting of the general body fixed for 28.09.2014 was published in the newspaper ''Balrampur Tarang' published from Barlrampur, therefore, the members had sufficient notice. The fact remains that all the members participated in the proceedings and the proceedings bore their signatures, therefore, the same could not have been invalidated only for the aforesaid reason. Regarding appointment of Authorised Controller, learned senior counsel submitted that Regional Joint Director of Education did not have any authority to appoint an Authorised Controller under any provision of law, that too, without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Committee of Management. In this regard he also relied upon clause-8 of the Approved Scheme of Administration. He also submitted that clause-21 of the said Scheme of Administration had been deleted by means of government order dated 02.09.2008, a copy of which was placed by him before the court, therefore, according to him, the Joint Director could not have passed the said order under the said provision.
Sri Tiwari submitted that earlier also attempts were made to usurp the management of the college by appointment of Authorised Controller vide order dated 03.12.2012 at the behest of minister of a State Government and the President of the Society, but, the said order was stayed by this court on a challenge being made by the petitioner herein in Writ Petition No.7255 (MS) of 2012, which is still pending. He submits that the present action is yet another attempt to usurp the management of the college. He also invited the attention of the court to Annexure-21, which is a letter of the President of the Committee of Management of the society, Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav stating that he had not sent any letter to the D.I.O.S. complaining about not having knowledge of election held on 28.09.2014, therefore, for this reason also, action of the D.I.O.S. referring the matter is not sustainable. He submitted that in the absence of a rival claim, the Regional Level Committee does not have any jurisdiction under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, therefore, the impugned order appointing Authorised Controller invalidating the election and was without jurisdiction. Provisions of Section 6 of U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 do not apply in the present case as none of the eventualities for the exercise of power under the said provision exists nor have they been mentioned in the impugned orders. He submitted that there was no provision for appointment of an election officer or declaration of a schedule of election in the bye-laws. The only requirement was to call a meeting of the general body with intimation of the agenda to the members, which had been duly complied with. No member of the society had complained as regards the election. The impugned actions have been taken for extraneous reasons including political pressure and an effort has been made to raise a dispute where none exists. The elections having been held within the term of the previous Committee of Management and intimation in this regard having been sent much earlier, the D.I.O.S. firstly sat over the matter for two months and thereafter, the impugned action had been taken, therefore, even if the election has been disapproved, the existing Committee of Management is entitled to continue. Sri Tiwari, however, submitted that he has no objection if the elections are held within a stipulated time under the supervision of the D.I.O.S. or such authorities as this court deems fit, but, the existing committee should be allowed to continue.
Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned additional chief standing counsel appearing for the State opposed the writ petition and submitted that clause-8 of the Approved Scheme of Administration does not have any play in the facts of the present case. The same would be applicable only where for some bona fide reasons, the elections cannot be held but here the elections have been held which was invalidated, therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to continue. In these circumstances, the only option open was to appoint Authorised Controller. When asked as to under which provision, the Authorised Controller had been appointed by the Joint Director, he referred to clause 21 of the Scheme of Administration and also relied upon paragraph 38(3) read with para-25 of the full bench decision in Committee of Management Vs. D.D.E., Gorakhpur, 2005 (1) UPLBEC 85 in support of his contentions. In this regard, he also relied upon Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Further, on being asked as to whether opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order, he submitted that the order dated 15.01.2015 does not speak of any such opportunity having been given. As far as the elections are concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the very mode of service followed by the petitioner was legally sustainable, therefore, clearly the entire process of elections was a sham and the same have rightly been invalidated, specially considering the report of the observer.
Sri Pt. S. Chandra appearing for the caveator, i.e. the Ex-President of the Society, who has not been impleaded in the writ petition, submitted that though the caveator was the manager of the institution prior to 2005 and admitted that his client was not functioning as such, as on date, but being a member of the society, he has already filed two writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No.5311 (MS) of 2005 and Writ Petition No.3293 (MS) of 2009 which are still pending, regarding the functioning of the society, he is entitled to be heard and arrayed as an opposite party in this writ petition. He submitted that the election held by the petitioner was fraudulent and illegal. The mode of service of notice of the meeting of the general body had been abolished long back in the year 2011, therefore, a clear fraud has been committed by sending the notices by U.P.C. No elections were held and as per report of observer and reference order of the D.I.O.S. neither any election officer was appointed nor any election schedule was circulated. The publication of notice of the meeting of the general body in the local newspaper was not sufficient, as, there were several members residing outside Balrampur, whereas, the said newspaper had only local circulation in the District Balrampur. Sri Chandra invited the attention of the court to clause-10(iii) of the Scheme of Administration which according to him was not complied with. He also alleged violation of clauses 19.8 & 28.8. He contended that the scope of clause-8 of the Scheme of Administration did not encompass such a situation where the elections are held and the same are declared to be invalid. The same have to be read in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 21(b) of the Scheme of Administration. He also relied upon the full bench decision referred hereinabove specially paragraph-35 and 38 thereof to contend that the petitioner was not entitled to continue after the election being declared invalid and the Authorised Controller had rightly been appointed. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. He also relied upon clause-20 of the Scheme of Administration to justify the impugned action. According to him, the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity before declaring the election as invalid vide order dated 02.01.2015 and the subsequent order dated 15.01.2015 appointing the Authorised Controller was only a consequential order, therefore, no further opportunity of hearing was provided.
Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel, who has filed impleadment application on behalf of expelled members of the society contends that the membership dispute is pending in Writ Petition No.4382 (MS) of 2010, though no interim order has been passed therein. According to him, the impugned order did not suffer from any apparent error, therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required.
I am of the view that the application for impleadment filed by Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel is not maintainable as the applicants therein are neither necessary parties nor proper parties herein. They may pursue their cases wherein they have challenged their expulsion from the society in the writ petitions which are pending.
As far as the ex-manager, who has filed the caveat through Sri Pt. S. Chandra is concerned, in my view, he is also neither a necessary nor a proper party as he has not set up any rival claim of management based on any election held by a rival Committee of Management. It is admitted by him that the petitioner herein is the Committee of Management elected in the earlier election and it continued to manage the affairs of the college till the passing of the impugned orders, therefore, the fact that the caveator has not been imleaded in the writ petition does not give him any cause to raise an objection in this regard in this writ petition.
As far as the validity of the election held by the petitioner on 28.09.2014 is concerned, the observer submitted an adverse report, subsequently, on 01.10.2014, but, he did put his signatures on the proceedings annexed with the writ petition, therefore, he ought to have been confronted with the aforesaid fact but this was not done and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the D.I.O.S. nor by the Regional Level Committee. But, the fact remains that the notice of meeting of the general body was allegedly sent to 61 out of the 81 members by U.P.C., i.e. a mode of service, which has been abolished by the postal department way back in the year 2011 itself, therefore, it is inexplicable as to how this was done. The contention of the petitioner that even the employees of the postal department were not aware that is why they sent the notices through the aforesaid mode, prima facie, cannot be accepted, but, in any event such service cannot be considered as valid and legal service for the purposes of convening the meeting of the general body. The contention of Sri Tiwari that service through U.P.C. is prescribed in the Bye-laws/ Scheme of Administration is not tenable firstly for the reason that this mode is prescribed in the Scheme of Administration for meetings of the Committee of Management and not of the General Body, secondly, it is not prescribed in the Bye-laws of the Society annexed with the writ petition, moreover, even if it was, once this mode of service has been abolished by the postal department, no mileage can be drawn by the petitioner based thereon. The contention of Sri Tiwari that irrespective of the above, as, the notice was published in the newspapers and all the members had appeared and participated in the meeting of the general body held on 28.09.2014, therefore, the election could not be held to be invalid only on this count and the D.I.O.S. was not justified in overlooking this aspect of the matter and referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee, can also not be accepted for the reason that this is a disputed question as to whether the members whose signatures exists on the proceedings dated 28.09.2014, are genuine or not and whether they had participated therein. In order to record any finding, evidence is required to be adduced, which is not possible in summary proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
In view of the above, for the defect in the service of notice upon the members of the general body itself the proceedings of the election allegedly held on 28.09.2014, if any, cannot be sustained, therefore, on this ground alone, the conclusion of the Regional Level Committee on the reference of the D.I.O.S. has to be sustained and cannot be invalidated.
As far as the reference of the dispute by the D.I.O.S. to the Regional Level Committee is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the observer had submitted an adverse report and prima facie it appeared to the D.I.O.S. that the election was invalid, he was justified in referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee in pursuance to the government order dated 19.12.2000, wherein, such committee has been authorised to consider all disputes pertaining to the management of the college, as, it was found by the State Government that the other authorities such as the D.I.O.S. were found to be misusing their powers in this regard. The said G.O. dated 19.12.2000 is not under challenge, but, has been placed before the court by the learned counsel for the parties. Even otherwise his action cannot be said to be unreasonable or illegal in the facts of the case.
Now the other question regarding the jurisdiction of the Joint Director of Education and sustainability of such action on his part even on merits needs to be considered. In this regard, I am of the view that one such provision under which the Authorised Controller could have been appointed is contained in Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, however, under the said provision, it is the State Government, which could have done so, that too, on the recommendation of the Director of Education. As no such exercise as contemplated in Section 16-D, which has been undertaken nor has the impugned order been passed by the State Government, therefore, clearly the impugned order dated 15.01.2015 cannot be said to have been passed under the aforesaid provision.
The other provision is contained in Section 6 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971. A perusal of Section 6 reveals that the power under it can be exercised only where, the inspector on the basis of an inspection of an institution or its records or otherwise is satisfied, that its management committee has committed default in complying with any direction given under Section 4 or with any provision of Section 3 or Section 5 and in such eventuality, he may recommend to the Regional Deputy Director of Education that action be taken against the petitioner institution under sub-section 2, whereupon, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may call upon the management to comply with the said direction or provision or to show cause within a week why the management should not be suspended. In sub-Section (3) thereof, if the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause or the Regional Deputy Director of Education considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by supersede the management and authorise any person to take over the management of the institution for the prescribed period and the said person is known as the Authorised Controller. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.01.2015, I find that though there is a reference that the said order is being passed in order to facilitate the payment of salary to the teachers and the employees of the institution, however, I am of the view that the said order is not traceable to Section 6 of the Act of 1971 for the reason that neither any violation of any direction under Section 4 or the provisions of Section 3 or Section 5 is alleged nor there appears to be any such violation. The order dated 15.01.2015 appears to have been passed as a consequence of the invalidation of the election dated 28.09.2014 by the Regional Committee vide its letter Madhyamik No.2314-19/2014-15 dated 02.01.2015 and not for any other reason, therefore, in view of the above, the order dated 15.01.2015 has not been passed under Section 6 of the Act of 1971.
Now I may come to the provisions contained in Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and clause 21(b) of the Scheme of Administration pertaining to the institution in question. Section 16-A(7) reads as under:
"(7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to management of an institution, person found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of the Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:
provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford a reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing.
Explanation- In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the Institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the scheme of administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances."
A perusal of the provision read with the full bench decision of this court relied upon by the learned additional chief standing counsel, does indicate that the said provision is applicable only when there is a rival claim/ Committee of Management claiming management of the institution in question thereof leading to a dispute with respect to the management of an institution. This appears to be so from the use of the words ''rival claimant' in the proviso to Section 16-A(7) and the use of the same word along with word ''rival committees' in various paragraphs of the full bench decision referred hereinabove. In this case, there is no rival claimant claiming management of the society nor any election dispute has been set up any person, therefore, the contention of Sri Tiwari that provisions of Section 16-A(7) were not applicable is sustainable.
On the other hand, Sri Pt. S. Chandra submitted that the use of the word rival claimant does not necessarily mean a rival Committee of Management but will include a person who could claim opportunity to contest elections if they were held fairly and legally.
The questions before the full bench referred above were as under:
"1. Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises administrative or quasi-judicial powers.
2. Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act can go into the question of validity of the elections.
3. Whether in case the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both the rival Committees are invalid, still he can decide the question of actual control and recognise one or the other Committee of Management. "
Answering the aforesaid questions, full bench held that the power exercised by the Regional Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) were quasi judicial powers and not administrative powers, therefore, opportunity of hearing and compliance with the principle of natural justice is to precede its decision thereunder. The full bench also held that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, prima facie, while deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution under Section 16-A(7) could go into the question of validity of election. The full bench further answered the third question by holding that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognise one or the other Committee of Management and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections expeditiously in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration, he shall appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected Committee of Management is available for taking over the management. The full bench decision has also observed that only a legal and duly elected Committee of Management has the right to manage the institution and if the elections set up by both the rival committees are invalid, then an Administrator (Praband Sanchalak) can be appointed when there is no provision for the same in the Scheme of Administration otherwise an Authorised Controller can be appointed as already referred hereinabove.
As there is no rival Committee of Management nor has it set up another election nor there is any rival claim to management, therefore, stricto sensu the present dispute does not fall within the purview of Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act and the order dated 15.01.2015 cannot be sustained with reference to it.
So far as the other question raised by Sri Tiwari regarding absence of opportunity of hearing before passing the order for appointment of the Authorised Controller is concerned, the right of the petitioner-Committee of Management to manage the institution was only till its terms subsisted or till the successors were chosen in terms of clause-8 of the Scheme of Administration. The term of the committee of management expired in November, 2014. In this context, clause-8 of the Scheme of Administration does not help the petitioner as the said provision will apply only where due to some unaviodable bona fide reason beyond the control of the management, the elections cannot be held, but, it would not cover a situation of ''holding over' or in this case, elections are held by the outgoing Committee of Management, but, the same are held to be invalid subsequently by the authority concerned, as, in such a situation on the elections being held, the successors were in fact chosen, but the elections itself have been invalidated. The application of clause-8 of the Scheme of Administration ceases on the date on which the same is held to invalid. Therefore, as soon as the term expired and the elections were held which were subsequently declared to be invalid, the petitioner ceases to have any right to manage the institution in question any further, specially, in view of the scope of clause-8 as explained hereinabove. In my view, in the absence of any such right, the principles of natural justice have no play. It is trite that there is no straight jacket formula for applying the principles of natural justice.
Whether in such a scenario as existing in this case, an authorised controller could have been appointed under Section 16-D of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. On a consideration of Section 16-D(3)(vi), wherein, the words ''or that the management of the institution is being conducted otherwise than in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or the affairs of the institution are being otherwise mis-managed', I am of the view that the authorised controller could have been appointed thereunder. Under clause-8 of the Scheme of Administration, not only the term of the Committee of Management is clearly prescribed, the Scheme of Administration obligates upon the existing Committee of Management to hold the election before the expiry of its term or at least within a reasonable period of its expiry if on account of some bona fide and unavoidable circumstances, it could not be held earlier. Thus, if the elections are held but the same are declared to be invalid, then it cannot be said that the management of the institution is being conducted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or its affairs are not being mis-managed. Holding of elections is part of the obligations of the Committee of Management.
Having said so, I must hasten to add that the appointment of the Authorised Controller under Section 16-D is a time taking process, therefore, the next question is that what should be done in the interregnum, i.e. the declaration of the election as invalid and appointment of the Authorised Controller under Section 16-D. In this context, it is relevant to point out that it was the petitioner's own contention that clause-21(b) of the Scheme of Administration stands deleted in view of the G.O. dated 02.09.2008, therefore, an Authorised Controller cannot be appointed under the said provision even as an interim measure. No such provision has been placed before me which takes care of this interim situation referred above. It being so, the matter cannot be left in limbo, if there is no provision made by the legislature or the rule making authority, which provides a solution then the court has to step in and evolve a principle for application to such a situation based on the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience. In this regard, I take a clue from the full bench decision referred hereinabove which considered a situation, where, if election of both the rival committees are held to be invalid and it answered the question No.3 framed by it, in this regard in Para-38(3). Taking a clue therefrom, it is evident that it is only the duly elected committee, which has a right to manage the affairs of the institution and if the election held by the Managing Committee is held to be invalid, then an Authorised Controller has to be appointed. If it cannot be done speedily or within a reasonable time under Section 16-D then the court has to step in.
In the present scenario, there is an emergent necessity of holding the election so that a democratically elected body is at the helm of affairs of the college. Uncertainty and delay in this regard is not in the interest of the college.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the impugned order of the Regional Level Committee invalidating the election held by the petitioner on 28.09.2014 does not require any interference, however, the order dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Joint Director of Education is without jurisdiction, therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 19.01.2015 attesting the signatures of the Authorised Controller is also quashed. Further, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the apprehension of the petitioner regarding political influence being exercised, the District Judge, Balrampur is directed to nominate a responsible judicial officer not below the rank of Additional District Judge within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, who shall function as the Authorised Controller of the institution in question and shall ensure that the elections to the Committee of Management of the said institution are held within a period of one month from the date of his nomination by convening a meeting of the General Body as per the Bye-laws/ Scheme of Administration. He shall also perform other day to day duties of the Authorised Controller, but, shall not take any major policy decision, specially those having major financial implications. The D.I.O.S. and other education authorities shall cooperate in compliance of this judgment and the functioning of the Authorised Controller so shall the petitioner and other parties herein. Based on the election so held, the duly elected Committee of Management shall take charge subject of course to any dispute being raised by any aggrieved person as per law. This arrangement is subject to any order/ decision to be passed in any of the writ petitions filed by the caveator or the applicant represented through Pt. S. Chandra and Sri U.S. Sahai, which are said to be pending in this court.
The Senior Registrar of this court shall send a copy of this judgment to the District Judge, Balrampur for compliance.
The learned additional chief standing counsel shall communicate this order to the D.I.O.S. Balrampur, who shall provide necessary documents/ records and information to the Authorised Controller and facilitate compliance of the judgment.
The nomination of the Authorised Controller shall be communicated to the D.I.O.S. Balrampur.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 27.2.2015 NLY